An elderly Manly West woman is struggling with financial hardship as she battles the authorities over the removal of a hazardous 35-metre gum tree on her rental property. The ongoing dispute has left her unable to rent out the home due to safety concerns, compounding her financial stress.
Lesley Beath, 85, owns a cottage on Killarney Avenue but has been unable to lease it due to fears that the towering Flooded Gum tree could collapse, posing a serious threat to tenants. A professional arborist, after assessing the tree and others on the property, deemed it an “extremely high risk,” citing its poor health, leaning structure, and displaced roots.
Despite these findings, BCC refused her initial request for removal, citing a decade-old protection order under the Natural Assets Local Law 2003. The classification of the tree as “significant urban vegetation” meant she was only granted permission to trim smaller branches rather than fully remove the tree.
Ms Beath expressed frustration over the lengthy bureaucratic delays, saying the process had cost her rental income while also leaving her legally vulnerable.
Neighbours Raise Safety Concerns
Local residents, including neighbours, have voiced concerns about the tree’s structural integrity. Several incidents have already occurred where large branches have fallen, including one that crashed into a room on Ms Beath’s property.
In January, another branch, measuring 17 cm in diameter, snapped off and remained suspended in a lower tree’s canopy until a neighbour arranged for professional removal.
Authorities’ Response and Policy Shift
The dispute saw further delays when BCC took four months to respond. Initially, they upheld the protection order, insisting only minor pruning was allowed. However, following recent incidents and renewed pressure, BCC has reversed its stance, now stating that Ms Beath can apply again for removal approval.
Despite this, Ms Beath remains frustrated, having already submitted expert reports and evidence supporting removal. She also refuted claims that she delayed the process by pausing assessments or refusing arborists access.
Financial Burden and Potential Penalties
Even if the removal is ultimately approved, the cost remains a significant hurdle. Ms Beath is prepared to cover the expenses herself, but the process has already taken a toll, both financially and emotionally.
Compounding the issue is the fact that her insurance only covers tree-related damage if it occurs during an insured event like a storm, meaning she could still be held liable for any injuries caused by falling branches in non-storm conditions.
Neighbourhood concerns, coupled with the impact on an elderly homeowner relying on rental income, have led to calls for BCC to reconsider its rigid approach to tree protection laws, especially in cases involving pensioners and financial hardship.
For now, Ms Beath is left waiting—again—hoping that this time, BCC will allow her to take the necessary action before another costly or dangerous incident occurs.
Published 14-Feb-2025
